Volume 5, Issue 10, October – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

E-Games and Linguistic Intelligence on Students’

Receptive Skills
Rizza Ramos Consad
Center For Innovative Teaching and Learning
Bukidnon State University
Malaybalay City, Philippines

Abstract:- The question how computer games as a
language environment influence learners has spurred
this investigation to examine whether e-games influenced
first year students’ receptive skills, i.e., reading and
listening comprehension skills when they were grouped
according to their linguistic intelligence. This study used
the mixed method: drawing from quantitative and
qualitative data in arriving at answers. The weighted
mean was used to identify the listening and reading
proficiency and the linguistic intelligence levels. Chi-
square was used to identify whether e-games and
linguistic intelligence influenced the receptive skills.
Qualitative data from separate focus group discussion
with students were conducted to substantiate the
quantitative data. The results showed that linguistic
intelligence affected the students’ receptive skills while
exposure to e-games or computer games did not.
Keywords:- E-Games, Electronic Games, Computer Games,
Linguistic Intelligence, Listening Comprehension, Reading
Comprehension.
I. INTRODUCTION
What started as a simple tic-tac-toe game created by
Douglas in 1952 as a first graphical computer game and
Russell’s Spacewar! has now evolved into various cutting
edge visually enhanced real time strategy games played on
personal computers to smaller digital gadgets like Play
Stations, Ipad, and cell phones, not diminished in quality
whatsoever. The World Wide Web not only allows
computer gaming a global social network captivating
gamers of different demography, but also opens the debate
on the value of these games to language learning and other
skill development relevant to academic success of students
(Farington, 2011; Honey & Hilton, 2011; Mayer, 2011).
The question of how e-games as a language environment
influence learners has spurred studies as this ubiquitous
technology flourished.
Recent studies like Borgonovi’s (2016) revealed that
though excessive gaming may hinder academic
achievement, but moderate gaming can result to some
positive outcomes based on a representative sample of
145,953 students from 26 countries that used the Programme
for International Student Assessment (PISA, 2012) with
self-reports on use of video games. Similarly, Drummond &
Sauer (2014) analyzed data from over 192,000 students in
22 countries involved in the 2009 PISA. Data showed that
gaming behaviors of students did not adversely affect their
academic performance in science, mathematics, and reading.
However, Hastings, Karas, Winsler, Way, Madiga, &
Tyler’s (2009) study concluded that a large amount of game
play was correlated negatively to academic outcomes among
young children. Bussiere and Gluszynski (2004)
investigated the impact of Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT) on the reading performance of 15 year-
old Canadians and found out that the occurrence of
computer gaming and using the Internet were not
significantly correlated with reading skills. Likewise, Radi
(2002) studied whether the increase use of computers and
gaming at home and school influenced junior high school
students’ development of literacy in reading comprehension
and vocabulary skills; findings showed that computers might
be detrimental to the development of basic language literacy
skills. With the various results of these studies throughout
the years, e-gaming may be viewed as a threat to
schoolwork and learning since much time is spent on
entertainment media and the games’ lack of educational
content or it may be a pedagogical tool to achieve academic
outcomes.
Likewise, teachers have varying opinions regarding
electronic games. In a survey conducted by the researcher
among teachers teaching first year college students, some
teachers observed that students who were penchant to
computer gaming or e-games lagged behind in their class
performance like unable to pass assignments and unprepared
for examinations, thus resulting to low performance. These
behaviors created a negative perception towards gaming
among teachers. On the other side of the spectrum, there
were also those who identified the value of these games to
learning. These teachers opined that these student-gamers
had good problem solving and analytical skills since the
games allowed them to think strategically to unlock
difficulties or progress through levels.
Most teachers expressed, however, their lack of
technical skills to incorporate commercially-produced
games in the classrooms. Most of them preferred to use
other Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
tools such as powerpoint presentations and the more
accessible platforms like Messenger, Google classroom, and

IJISRT20OCT042 www.ijisrt.com 100

Volume 5, Issue 10, October – 2020
the like. On the outset, most of the teachers are still
undecided on the pedagogical functions of these games with
the intent to improve language learning.
This study would like to contribute in identifying the
potentialities of these games in education. With this
premise, this study examined the listening comprehension
skills and reading comprehension skills of student-gamers
and non- gamers when both groups were classified based on
their linguistic intelligence. Further, it identified whether e-
games and linguistic intelligence influenced these receptive
skills.
II. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The study examined whether e-games and linguistic
intelligence influenced students’ receptive skills.
Specifically, it answered the following questions:
1. What is the listening and reading comprehension
proficiency levels of students who are exposed to e-
games and those who are not with high and low
linguistic intelligence?
2. How do e-games and linguistic intelligence affect the
students’ receptive skills?
III. HYPOTHESES
1. There is no significant contribution of exposure to e-
games to students’ receptive skills.
2. There is no significant contribution of linguistic
intelligence to students’ receptive skills.
IV. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Connectivism , a Theory for the Digital Era
With the unique environments learners expose
themselves to, Siemens (2004) proposes a theory of learning
for the digital era—Connectivism. This learning theory is
often referred to as “networked learning.” Learning occurs
when an individual connects himself/herself to a learning
community, called a node which is always a part of a larger
network. Networks have connection points that create other
nodes, and these nodes may be linked to one another to
share resources. Siemens (2008) believes that there is a shift
from instructor or institution-controlled teaching to a
learner-centered acquisition of knowledge wherein the
learner has the greater control on what to learn and where to
acquire learning, not confined by geographical boundaries.
This organization or network disseminates knowledge
and keeps it in a variety of digital formats. The existence of
the Internet allows the sleepless, borderless, and limitless
access to learning and knowledge to geographically
separated individuals, connected with the same interest or
connected when in search for information. Siemens believes
that computers provide the venue for the exchange and
creation of information, a platform for “social distribution of
cognition.”
IJISRT20OCT042 www.ijisrt.com
International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Therefore, the learning process is learner-centered; the
learner is responsible for weighing the value of knowledge
he or she gains. Siemens (2008) explains the skill needed in
the development, distribution, and acquisition of knowledge.
Siemens further expounds (2004) that this skill has to be
present in the learner even prior to the actual learning; the
ability of synthesizing and recognizing connections and
patterns is an essential skill in today’s digital learning. The
bulk of information provided by the digital world is so vast
and the speed of new information gets through the networks
is so rapid that this skill is a requirement for learning. This
theory is relevant to the present study since it expounds the
prevalent scenario in the digital world—“networked
learning.”
B. E-games, Computer Games, and Video Games
This theory closely relates to the concept of e-gaming
since it is a network activity where there is an exchange of
information, ideas, and feelings amongst its users exist.
Computer games, video games, or electronic games are now
synonymous because of the blurring boundaries between
computing and video technology (Mitchell and Cavill-
Smith, 2004). In this study, e-games is used for uniformity
of terms referring to all games classified under this term.
Frasca (2001) as quoted by Newman (2004), these are
“forms of computer-based entertainment software, either
textual or image-based, using any electronic platform such
as personal computers or consoles and involving one or
multiple players in a physical or networked environment
(p.4).” These games allow participation of the gamer or
gamers into a virtual environment as provided by the
software. These are different formats like hand-held one-
player models, cartridges, or compact discs that are slotted
in a component attached to television sets, or a network of
computers, “freestanding” arcade units, and applications in
smartphones.
Newman (2004), adapting Howland’s (1998) elements
of these games, described the elements as follows: graphics,
images that the gamer will see, 3D objects, 2D tiles, 2D full
screen shots, full motion video, statistics, and informational
overlays; sound, any music or sound effects played during
the games; interface, the menu and tools the gamer needs to
navigate the game; gameplay, the entertainment, immersion,
and the length of playability; and the story, the narrative
before the game starts and all information the gamer gains
as the game progresses.
Kaptelinin and Cole (2001) categorize these games
into action, adventure, fighting, platform, knowledge,
simulation/modeling/role-playing such as strategy games,
drill and practice, logical and math games. With the
advanced gaming technology, many of these games appeal
come from the synchronization of flashing lights, a variety
of sounds, and movie-like animated action. Some of these
games have numerous levels and interweaving game plots
requiring many hours to finish. The presence of these
elements explains the strong proclivity of young and old
alike in their engagement to these games.
101
Volume 5, Issue 10, October – 2020
These games may be played among several gamers or
an individual against the gaming system’s artificial
intelligence. Other internet-based games called massively
multiplayer on-line games (MMOGs) allow thousands of
individuals communicating through their “avatars”
(representative icons or animated computer characters) and
exploring virtual worlds (Lowood, 2019). The creation of
new and improvement of existing games and the enormous
number of gamers worldwide show the impact of gaming as
an entertainment medium and as an educational tool for
some.
C. Linguistic Intelligence
Gardner (1983) defines linguistic intelligence as not
only solely on the aptitude of a person in learning another
language but also the use of his own native language or
other languages for certain purposes. This intelligence
means that one successfully use the language to verbalize
one’s thoughts and ideas in different contexts as well as
recalling information with the use of language.
He expounds four aspects of this intelligence. The first
one is the ability to use language to persuade other people to
action. The second aspect is the mnemonic potential of
language or the ability to use language to remember for
information such as finding one’s way in an unfamiliar place
or playing a game. Next characteristic is its role in
explanation, that is, language is used in teaching and
learning. The ability to explicate ideas and the ability to
understand given inputs require linguistic aptitude. The last
aspect is the ability to use language to analyze language. It
involves meta-linguistic analysis or simply thinking about
the meaning of what one has just uttered.
Gardner (1983) recognizes that people who have
linguistic competence possess “varying significant degrees”
of sensitivities to language. For example, a person who has a
strong inclination to reading, may be a poor story teller. This
shows that individuals with linguistic intelligence may show
differing competences. This important concept is necessary
since the study identified the students’ level linguistic
intelligence whether they had high or low linguistic
intelligence.
D. Receptive Skills
Receptive skills pertain to listening and reading;
learners do not produce language to perform these skills
rather they receive and understand language. Snow (2002)
describes reading comprehension as “the process of
constructing and extracting meaning is the process of
simultaneously constructing and extracting meaning through
interaction and engagement with print.” It is a multifaceted,
dynamic process wherein understanding what one reads is
the ultimate goal of every reading experience. Reading
comprehension skills include noting details, getting the main
idea, sequencing events, identifying cause and effect,
predicting outcomes, drawing conclusions, and identifying
author’s purpose. These skills allow learners to make sense
of printed language.
IJISRT20OCT042 www.ijisrt.com
International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
On the other hand, listening is the receptive skill in the
oral mode. This means that one understands what one hears.
This involves skills in comprehending the messages
received. Rost (2002) defines listening as a process of
hearing what a speaker utters (receptive orientation);
creating and denote meaning (constructive orientation);
negotiating meaning with the speaker and reacting
(collaborative orientation); and, making meaning through
participation, imagination and empathy (transformative
orientation). A listener would either use his/her linguistic
knowledge to understand aural input (bottom-up process) or
activate his/her schema or background knowledge to
comprehend what is heard. This shows that listening is an
active mental process of decoding and understanding what
one hears.
V. METHODOLOGY
This study utilized the mixed methods approach in
which the quantitative and qualitative data were collected,
analyzed, and combined to provide a better understanding of
research problems (Creswell, 2014). This study specifically
used the triangulation design. The quantitative data were
gathered through researcher-made tests to identify receptive
skills and an adapted questionnaire on linguistic intelligence
of students both e-gamers and non- e-gamers. Qualitative
data from the focus group discussions with students were
used to substantiate the numerical results. Also, the
researcher followed the research and development design in
the construction and validation of the reading and listening
comprehension proficiency tests.
The respondents of this study were the first year
college students of Bukidnon State University. These
students were enrolled in various degree programs with
different fields of specializations; their ages ranged from 16
– 27. Five English teachers handling first year students
were selected to participate in the focus group discussion.
Their teaching experience ranged from 17 years to four
years; their educational qualifications include being masters
and doctoral degree holders.
To get the sample population of this study, the sample
size formula for normally distributed population was used.
The result gave 663 as the sample size. From 663, the
Rogers Indicator of Multiple Intelligences (RIMI)
determined the students with low and high linguistic
intelligence. Basing on the Roger’s Indicator of Multiple
Intelligences and simple survey on who were computer
gamers and non-computer gamers, there were 31 computer
gamers; 11 of these were categorized with low linguistic
intelligence (LI) and 20 with high linguistic intelligence;
and there were 39 non-computer gamers; out of these
students, 14 were classified with low linguistic intelligence,
and 25 with high linguistic intelligence.
The listening and reading comprehension proficiency
tests were research-made with alpha Cronbach reliabilities
.70 and .79 respectively. These tests were also content-
102
Volume 5, Issue 10, October – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
validated by experts and revised based on the evaluation and
results of the index of difficulty and index of discrimination.
These were used to identify the receptive skills of the
learners. The weighted mean was used to identify the
proficiency levels and the linguistic levels and chi-square
was used to identify whether e-games and linguistic
intelligence influenced the receptive skills.

VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This study aimed to identify whether e-games and

linguistic intelligence influenced students’ receptive skills.
This study further ascertained the contributory factors
Table 2:- Exposure to e-Games in Relation to Students’
influencing the students’ receptive skills. Table 1 reveals the
Receptive Skills
students’ proficiency levels as they were grouped according
to their linguistic intelligence levels and e-gaming exposure.
The results reveal that exposure to computer games is
not significantly related to the students’ listening and
LC Proficiency RC Proficiency reading comprehension proficiency levels. Whether a
mean Level mean Level learner is a gamer or not, computer gaming does not
score score influence his/her proficiency in both receptive skills at all.
e- Further, this result shows that computer games’ linguistic
gamers 19.31 very 21.15 proficient inputs may not be sufficient enough to affect the receptive
high 18.36 proficient 20.00 proficient skills of the students. The instructions on screen, the
LI proficient background stories of the games, and the conversations
low among the players either encoded or spoken may not be
LI accessed by gamers all the time. Some players interviewed
non-e- stated that they did not read the background stories, and
gamers 18.88 very 22.24 very when they understood the game play, they did not rely too
high 15.71 proficient 17.64 proficient much on the instructions, but made their own decisions in
LI proficient proficient the game. Though they communicated with other players,
low these were short sentences and were only given when
LI necessary.
Table 1:- The Students’ Listening (LC) and Reading
Comprehension (RC) Skills Proficiency Levels as Grouped Also, the highly interactive games engaged the gamers
According to their Linguistic Intelligence (LI) into the play so much that whatever textual inputs these
games have, these are not stored in the short-term memory,
As shown in the table, both e-gamers and non-e- which is in charge of information to be readily retrieved. In
gamers with high LI are very proficient in listening other words, the nature of the games overrides the linguistic
comprehension, and those with low LI are proficient. These inputs. These e-games are designed with a movie-like
learners with high LI have more significant abilities in animated action synchronized with variety of sounds and
understanding verbal language compared to those with low auditory instructions and interactions. The achievable
LI. In reading comprehension, e-gamers with high LI and complexities of the games on the backdrop of visuals and
low LI are proficient. While, non-e-gamers with high LI are sounds may prevent possible language inputs to be
very proficient and those with low LI are proficient. processed by the gamers, thus, inhibiting the gamers from
Learners with high LI who are not exposed to games have benefitting linguistically, in terms of receptive skills.
significant abilities in reading comprehension. Regardless of
the level of the linguistic intelligence of e-gamers, their The result somehow contradicts with Cruz’s (2006)
reading comprehension proficiency level are the same, i.e., observations on computer games that they have “potential as
manifesting adequate abilities in understanding written texts. a language development and enhancement tool.” He opines
that the interaction between the characters and the gamers
A. e-Games on Students’ Receptive Skills exposes the gamers to the language thus developing
Table 2 reveals e-games relationship to the students’ language skills. Placing this observation on the context of
receptive skills. this research, the aural inputs received by gamers are not as
significant as to affect their listening and reading
proficiency skills.

This result is in consonance with Bussiere and

Gluszynski’s (2004)’s findings that computer gaming as an
ICT variable was not significantly correlated to reading
skills. In like manner, Radi’s (2002) investigation on

IJISRT20OCT042 www.ijisrt.com 103

Volume 5, Issue 10, October – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
increased use of computers, including gaming, and literacy
development in reading and vocabulary skills showed that
computer use might show a negative impact on young
people’s developing basic language literacy skills.
The researcher concurs with the the term used by
Prensky (2006) to refer to the learners today, digital natives,
who have grown with the ubiquitous technological
environment—presence of cellphones, Ipad, Ipod,
computers, and Internet—and how they may think
differently from their predecessors who grew with print
media. The results, however, do not recommend the use of
commercially-produced games in the enhancement of
listening and reading as opposed to Prensky’s (2006)
proposal on the use of computer games in language
teaching. These may also refute Ang and Saphiris’ (2008)
claim on the educational potential of games in language
learning since the results reveal that computer gaming fails
to contribute to the receptive skills of students.
The results neither dispute e-games’ value in
developing other skills such as problem-solving and the
emerging visual literacy (Bleed, 2005). According to Bleed
(2005), visual literacy has emerged because of the
proliferation of media; one of the strongest forms of digital
media is the computer games. The visual stimulation of this
medium allows different skills being learned like
comprehending representational, explanatory, abstract, and
symbolic images, applying knowledge on electronic media,
and communicating effectively through visuals (Bleed, 2005
quoting enGauge Report). Based on these notions, the
results do not refute connectivism, as a theory of the digital
age since there are sets of skills that may have been
developed by these gamers. Siemens’ (2004) belief that
learning resides in networks like how e-gaming creates
community of gamers as a venue for learning skills.
The hypothesis, there is no significant contribution of
exposure to e-games to students’ receptive skills is,
therefore, is accepted because the results show that exposure
to e-games is not significantly related to the receptive skills
B. Linguistic Intelligence Influence on the Students’
Receptive Skills
The implications discussed in the previous sections on
the possibility of linguistic intelligence’s influence on the
receptive skills of students are affirmed in Table 3 below.
The table shows the results of the influence of linguistic
intelligence to the receptive skills of students.
IJISRT20OCT042 www.ijisrt.com
ISSN No:-2456-2165
TABLE 3. Linguistic Intelligence in Relation to the
Students’ Receptive Skills
The result reveals that linguistic intelligence is
significantly related to the listening and reading
comprehension proficiency levels of students when grouped
according to high and low linguistic intelligence regardless
of e-gaming exposure. This shows that linguistic
intelligence influences the receptive skills of the students.
As shown on the table, the students with high LI had a
higher proficiency level compared to those with low LI, and
both groups’ receptive skills were influenced by their
linguistic intelligence. This indicates a connection between
LI and receptive skills.
Studies by Rahimi, Sadighi, and Fard (2011) and
Sriadi (2012) share the same result with the present study.
Rahimi, et al (2011) found out that students with high
linguistic intelligence demonstrated higher reading abilities,
and LI was a strong predictor of reading performance.
Sriadi’s study yielded the same results that students with
high LI and low LI who were taught the same reading
strategy performed differently in a reading test. Students
with high LI had higher scores while those with low LI had
lower scores. In like manner, LI also correlated with
listening comprehension as revealed in the study of Babak
(2008) who investigated the role of the multiple
intelligences in students’ listening proficiency. He found out
that LI was a factor of TOEFL and IELTS listening scores
while other intelligences were not. The data revealed that
only LI had a statistically significant contribution to
listening proficiency. These studies strengthen the findings
of this study that, indeed, linguistic intelligence influences
the receptive skills.
According to Gardner (1983), one aspect of linguistic
intelligence is the ability to use language to analyze
language, thus involving meta-linguistic analysis on what is
heard or read. One’s competence in a language assists an
individual in decoding oral or written inputs; in fact, the
ability to understand given inputs requires linguistic
aptitude. Listening is a linguistic skill that allows one to
understand aural inputs. Nunan (1997) identifies that the
two-processes that comprise the listening process are
necessary. The bottom-up processing is language-based; one
decodes the sounds into words and words into phrases, and
phrases are combined to create sentences. Then, sentences
are put together to form comprehensible texts. This process
is sequential wherein the meaning is derived at the last step
of the process (Nunan, 1997). This premise indicates the
linguistic aptitude in listening comprehension.
This process associates with linguistic intelligence as
LI’s areas of sensitivities are on phonology, combining
sounds to form words; syntax, ordering of words in
sentences; and semantics, putting sentences into meaningful
whole. This just shows the correlation of bottom-up
processing and one’s linguistic aptitude or potential. The
other view of listening process is the top-down processing.
The listener uses incoming sounds as clues, and taps “prior
104
Volume 5, Issue 10, October – 2020
knowledge of the context and situation within which the
listening takes place to make sense of what he or she hears
(Nunan, 1997).” The listener reconstructs what he or she
hears by activating background knowledge, and considering
the situation or context where the input is heard, the type of
the oral text, and the language. Even in this processing,
characteristics of linguistic intelligence are present. Thus
substantiating the result, LI influences listening
comprehension.
On the other hand, reading is a complex cognitive
process by which a person derives meaning from text. Owen
(2010) further describes it as “the synthesis of a complex
network of perceptual and cognitive acts along a continuum
from word recognition and decoding skills to
comprehension and integration.” Reading involves steps to
comprehend what one reads, and linguistic intelligence
influences that process.
Owen (2010) traces the reading process starting with
the decoding of the print that involves the breaking of a
word into its parts like sounds and putting these sounds to
create a decipherable word. The brain has the capacity to
identify sounds and put the sounds together to create
meaningful words. In relation to LI, one area of sensitivity is
phonology (Gardner, 1983). Based on grammar, word
meanings, and context, these words are interpreted and
comprehended. These components like grammar or syntax;
word meanings, pertaining to semantics; and the context or
pragmatics, are areas of sensitivity for linguistic intelligence
as well. Reading is basically a complex linguistic process
interplaying with linguistic intelligence.
Konza (2011) elucidates that “comprehension requires
engagement with the text at a deep level, and an array of
skills that go far beyond simple word recognition.” And,
these skills include relevant background knowledge of
which the schema theory describes as an essential tool in
comprehension, familiarity with semantic and syntactic
structures, and verbal reasoning. All these pertain to areas of
sensitivity of linguistic intelligence. Gleaning from Konza’s
(2011) statement, it can be surmised that there really is a
connection between LI and reading comprehension.
The hypothesis, there is no significant contribution of
linguistic intelligence to students’ receptive skills, is
therefore, rejected because the results show that linguistic
intelligence is significantly related to the receptive skills
proficiency levels of students.
VII. CONCLUSION
Based on the findings, the following conclusion is
drawn: linguistic intelligence is a predictor of students’
receptive skills for both e-gamers and non-e-gamers,
whereas e-games do not predict the skills. E-games’ highly
engaging visual and interactive environment may undermine
potential linguistic inputs beneficial for the gamers. A
different set of skills may have been developed by this
group of learners. Also, non-e-gamers may have developed
IJISRT20OCT042 www.ijisrt.com
International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
their linguistic, formal, and content schemata through
exposure of the language in various experiences and
interests. It is then recommended that since linguistic
intelligence influences the receptive skills of students,
activities that further develop and foster this intelligence be
utilized in and out of the classrooms. Also, a research may
be ventured to explore other factors such as visual literacy to
identify how this influence the receptive skills among e-
gamers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The researcher extends her sincerest gratitude for
Bukidnon State University for the support extended to her in
the conduct of this study and Dr. J. Keith Rogers, professor
emeritus of Brigham Young University, for allowing the
researcher to use the Rogers Indicator of Multiple
Intelligences questionnaire.
REFERENCES
[1]. Ang, C.S. &, Zaphiris, P. (2008) Computer games and
language learning. In T.T. Kidd and H. Song (Eds.),
Handbook on Research on Instructional Systems and
Technology,pp 449 -462, Hershey, PA:IGI Global.
[2]. Babak, M. (2008). The role of multiple intelligences
(MI) in listening proficiency: A comparison of TOEFL
and IELTS listening tests from an MI perspective. The
Asian EFL Journal, 10, pp. 109-126.
[3]. Bleed, R. (2005). Visual literacy in higher education.
Retrieved from https://net.education.edu/ir/ library/
pdf/ELI4001.pdf.
[4]. Borgonovi, F. (2016). Video gaming and gender
differences in digital and printed reading performance
among 15-year-olds students in 26 countries.
Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26874783.
[5]. Bussiere, P. & and Gluszynski, T. (2004). The impact
of computer use on reading achievement of 15 year-
olds. Retrieved from http://www.pisa.gc.ca/eng/pdf/SP
–5999-05-04E.pdf.
[6]. Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed-method approaches, 4th ed.
SAGE Publication: USA.
[7]. Cruz, J. (2006). Video games and the ESL classroom.
Retrieved from http://iteslj.org./Articles-Quijano-
Videogames.html.
[8]. Drummond, A. & Sauer, J.D. (2014). Video-Games do
not negatively impact adolescent academic
performance in science, mathematics or reading. PLoS
ONE 9(4): e87943.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087943.
[9]. Farrington, J. (2011). From the research: Myths worth
dispelling: Seriously, the game is up. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 24, 105 -110.
https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20114.
[10]. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. Basic Books:
New York.
105
Volume 5, Issue 10, October – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[11]. Honey, M.A., Hilton ML, eds. (2011). Learning [28]. Snow, C.E.. (2010). Reading comprehension: reading
science through computer games and simulations. for learning. International Encyclopedia of Education,
Washington, DC: National Academic Press. 413-418, 10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00511-X.
[12]. Konza, D. (2011). Research into practice
understanding the reading process. Retrieved from
http://www.deed.sa.gov.au/literacy/files/links_157541.
[13]. Kaptelinin, V. & Cole, M. (2001). Individual and
collective activities in educational computer game
playing. In Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N.
(Eds), CSCL2 Carrying forward the conversation (pp.
303-316). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum,
Associates Publishers.
[14]. Mayer, R.E. (2011) Multimedia learning and games. In
Tobias, S. & Fletcher, J.D. (Eds), Computer Games
and Instruction, 281–306, Charlotte, NC: Information
Age Publishing.
[15]. Mitchell, A. and Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of
computer and video games for learning. Learning and
Skills Development Agency: London.
[16]. Newman, J. (2004). Videogames. London: Routledge,
Francis and Taylor. Retrieved from
http://blog.ocad.ca/wordpress/vism2b15-su2012-
01/files/2012/05/Videogames- textbook.pdf.
[17]. Nunan, D. (1997). Listening in language teaching.
Retrieved from
http://jaltpublications.org./old_tlt/files/97/sep/nunan/ht
ml
[18]. Owen, R. E. (2010). The process of reading. retrieved
from http://www.education/reference/ article/process-
reading.
[19]. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital
immigrants. On the Horizon, MCB University Press, 9
(5).
[20]. Prensky, M. (2006). Digital Game-Based Learning.
McGraw-Hill: New York.
[21]. Radi, O. (2002). The impact of computer use on
literacy in reading comprehension and vocabulary
skills. Retrieved from
http://crpit.com/abstracts/CRPITV8Radi.html.
[22]. Rahimi, M., Sadighi, P. & Hoesseiny Fard, Z.(2011).
The impact of linguistic and emotional Intelligence on
the reading performance of Iranian EFL learners. The
Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 3(1),
Spring 2011, Ser 62/4.
[23]. Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and Researching Listening.
London, UK: Longman.
[24]. Schema Theory in education (2014). Retrieved
fromhttp://education.stateuniversity.com/pages
/2175/Learning-Theory-SCHEMA-THEORY.html.
[25]. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivisim : a learning theory
for the digital age. retrieved from
http://www.elearnspace.org/articles/
connectivism.htm.
[26]. Siemens, G. (2008). New structures and spaces of
learning: The systematic impact of connective
knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning.
Elearnspace weekly Newsletter, 20.
[27]. http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

IJISRT20OCT042 www.ijisrt.com 106